No. I am showing an example of a society with smaller, more fuel efficient cars and lower automotive death rate per mile(km) driven

No, that's my point. There are way too many variables involved in the comparison to make such a case.

Simply untrue. When is the last time you actually cracked an automotive review magazine?

Yesterday, when I pulled the numbers above from the website of one. Keep the comparisons within a reasonable price range (ie the larger car does not cost 1/2 again to more than twice as much) and my statement holds.

Thing is you're comparing apples and green beans.

No. I am showing an example of a society with smaller, more fuel efficient cars and lower automotive death rate per mile(km) driven. According to your thesis this should not be unless you believe those European socialists are better drivers than good solid capitalist Americans since the common driving patterns are not all that dissimilar.

Yes, I do dispute it. Most small cars I've driven,(And I've driven rather a lot, given a former job) couldn't handle their way out of paper bag.

I've driven plenty of both as well on SoCal freeways and the smaller cars were generally more maneuverable and more fun to drive. I would take a Outback Sport or WRX over an Escalade any day of the week. The former is far more maneuverable and fun to drive (and far shorter breaking distance), will off-road every bit as well, and doesn't require a second mortgage to pay for the gas.

Because on average they have smaller/more fuel efficient cars than here so can serve as an example of the danger or lack thereof of smaller/more fuel efficient cars.

Thing is you're comparing apples and green beans.

Driving anything other than another semi or a large bus, when in an accident with a semi you lose. Should we then all drive semis or large buses for safety's sake?

But you don't DIE, usually, in the process, if there's a frame under you. Tell me; in which vehicle do you suppose a passenger would fair better in a rear end collision witha semi? A Prius, or an Escalade?

There are some exceptions when the larger car is a performance auto and the smaller is an economy vehicle, but in the large majority of cases when the larger and smaller car are both performance or both economy vehicles the breaking distance on the smaller car is shorter.

Simply untrue. When is the last time you actually cracked an automotive review magazine?

notice also that you do not dispute that smaller cars are generally more maneuverable, yet you do discount this as a potential for accident avoidance. Do you think that more maneuverable cars are not better able to avoid collisions?

Yes, I do dispute it. Most small cars I've driven,(And I've driven rather a lot, given a former job) couldn't handle their way out of paper bag. It's one more reason I simply won't buy one. Cheaply made, and light, not performance, is the object of such cars. Underpowered to the point of not being able to get out of their own way, tipsy, and usually able to over-run the rubber they're fitted with...(No accident avoidence to speak of) (Shudder) no thanks. I choose LIFE.

But the fatality rate on a per accident basis, as compared to more solidly built vehicles, is staggeringly high.

Driving anything other than another semi or a large bus, when in an accident with a semi you lose. Should we then all drive semis or large buses for safety's sake?

Oh, yes, we can.. it's zero, because it's not true. Smaller vehicles may well have less mass to stop, but then again, they're usually equipped with lesser braking power, and therefore end up stopping in about the same distance.

A few within brand comparisons of size and breaking distance in m at 100 km/hr
Cadillac Escalade............72.6
Cadillac Seville...............38.6
Subaru Outback.............43.6
Subaru Imprezza............41.9
Volvo V70.....................48.2
Volvo V40.....................41.7
There are some exceptions when the larger car is a performance auto and the smaller is an economy vehicle, but in the large majority of cases when the larger and smaller car are both performance or both economy vehicles the breaking distance on the smaller car is shorter. You know more mass to stop, cheaper cars = cheaper components, real world and all.
I notice also that you do not dispute that smaller cars are generally more maneuverable, yet you do discount this as a potential for accident avoidance. Do you think that more maneuverable cars are not better able to avoid collisions?

Look at a map of old Europe... It doesn't take Magellin to see that you're not talking nearly the miles between ciies, though, does it? Therefore, less long haul freeway miles.

But that is not when/where most accidents happen here or there. People here and there are driving on crowded freeways going to and from work. People here and there do not often go on road trips of more than 4-6 hours (Paris to Milan is about 8hrs, Paris to Amsterdam is about 5 hours).

Aside... why are we holding up Europe as the shining example again?

Because on average they have smaller/more fuel efficient cars than here so can serve as an example of the danger or lack thereof of smaller/more fuel efficient cars.

If you are speaking about semis they constitute a miniscule fraction of traffic accidents

But the fatality rate on a per accident basis, as compared to more solidly built vehicles, is staggeringly high.

More drivers and more SUVs also correlate with the increased rate.

More drivers, perhaps. Not more SUV's. Indeed, the fatality rate (Once rollovers from tire failures are factored out) goes down when SUV's enter the picture.

Also, smaller cars/trucks are also generally more maneuverable and have shorter breaking distances and so are able to avoid more accidents which is not accounted for. We cannot know how many accidents are entirely avoided because of this..

Oh, yes, we can.. it's zero, because it's not true. Smaller vehicles may well have less mass to stop, but then again, they're usually equipped with lesser braking power, and therefore end up stopping in about the same distance. (In my case, I've had my vans, and now my Rainier fitted with increased braking power, to overcome even that.)

The ratio of freeways to surface streets appeared nearly the same to me. All major hubs are connected by freeways and the population density is considerably higher on average.

Look at a map of old Europe... It doesn't take Magellin to see that you're not talking nearly the miles between ciies, though, does it? Therefore, less long haul freeway miles.

(Aside... why are we holding up Europe as the shining example again? WHat is it about that socialist paradise that causes this constant comparison? (Or, have I answered my own question?)

This is a way, the only way.

Should read
This is a way, not the only way.

Fine.
You're going to eliminate all trucks from the highway, now? If not, you still have a problem. You know... the real world?

Are you speaking about light trucks or semis? If you are speaking about semis they constitute a miniscule fraction of traffic accidents. If you are talking about light trucks, they are also subject to CAFE standards.

So, why weren't they dying at the same rate when cars actually had a frame, then?

More drivers and more SUVs also correlate with the increased rate.
Also, smaller cars/trucks are also generally more maneuverable and have shorter breaking distances and so are able to avoid more accidents which is not accounted for. We cannot know how many accidents are entirely avoided because of this.

But does not constitute nearly the same percentage of miles it does here. That cannot be without effect. Again, real world.

Really? Care to back that up?
The ratio of freeways to surface streets appeared nearly the same to me. All major hubs are connected by freeways and the population density is considerably higher on average.

BTW you seem focused on lighter weight vehicles as the means to increase fuel efficiency. This is a way, the only way.

Bit you seem to be quite concerned about the risk to life involved with lighter cars. What about the risk to life from pollution?

And those numbers would be what, exactly?

Let's ask the EPA:

By virtually any measure, the air we breathe in the United States is cleaner today than at any time since we started monitoring air quality back in 1970.
....
In 2003, PM2.5 concentrations were the lowest they have been since nationwide monitoring began in 1999.

In 2003, concentrations of a related pollutant known as PM10 (10 micrometers) were the second lowest since nationwide monitoring began in 1988.

Significantly, we have seen the biggest improvements in regions with the worst air quality problems. Between 1999 and 2003, PM2.5 levels dropped 20 percent in the Southeast, 16 percent in southern California, and 9 percent in the industrial Midwest.
...

Now; this is still a problem?

Again, real world.
Nice try, though.

No. Again the studies referenced in the article actually point to less danger in low weight to low weight collisions

Fine.
You're going to eliminate all trucks from the highway, now? If not, you still have a problem. You know... the real world?

The vehicle weight to accident ratio was also confounded by the linear relationship between vehicle weight and age. Younger people are getting in more serious accidents and younger people are driving lighter cars

So, why weren't they dying at the same rate when cars actually had a frame, then?

The freeway systems there move at similar rates of speed

But does not constitute nearly the same percentage of miles it does here. That cannot be without effect. Again, real world.

But obviously, it DOES.

No. Again the studies referenced in the article actually point to less danger in low weight to low weight collisions.
The vehicle weight to accident ratio was also confounded by the linear relationship between vehicle weight and age. Younger people are getting in more serious accidents and younger people are driving lighter cars. You look at this evidence and say that it is obvious that the lighter cars are at fault. That is far from obvious. Did you even skim the actual study referenced in the article you uncritically borrowed from?

But not nearly as much of a freeway system, in total.

The freeway systems there move at similar rates of speed and the ratio of freeway to surface street driving there is not all that different in my experience.

BTW Europe also has fast drivers so that does not account for the differences between here and there.

But not nearly as much of a freeway system, in total.

I continue to disagree with you that a small increase in supply would have a radical effect on price.

Perhaps a peek at recent history, as regards Phrudoe Bay and it's effects on price.
And yes, that operation produced rather more than was predicted, but then again, that's part of the point; This stuff usually gets under-estimated, becaise of among other things, technology improvements during the life of the field.

If you are going to cut and paste it is best to provide the link.

The NRC study found that vehicle downsizing and downweighting resulted in between 1,300 and 2,600 deaths and between 13,000 and 26,000 serious injuries in 1993 alone.

from the study referenced in the article you borrowed from,

The relationship between fuel economy and highway safety is complex, ambiguous, poorly understood, and not measureable by any known means at the present time...Part of the difficulty of estimating the true relationships between vehicle weight and highway safety is empirical: reality presents us with poorly designed experiments and incomplete data. For example, driver age is linearly related to vehicle weight

also in that same study,

There is no fundamental scientific reason why decreasing the mass of all highway vehicles must result in more injuries and fatalities.

But obviously, it DOES. The reason for that wording? The lawsuit. Or hadn't that idea occurred to you... they don't want to get sued.

Steve;

We must also recognize certain steps (such as ultra fuel efficient cars) could cost lives

Could? No. WILL.

James:

Probably 70-75% of my driving is the daily commute to work and there's no alternative that wouldn't both suck up another two hours a day and be much less pleasant. I suppose I could make even more effort than I do now to consolidate errands but that would probably amount to no more than 2-5% of my driving. Even there, though, you're talking about giving up substantial flexibility

Correct. UYet, they know all of this. And of course the economic consequences of this are not unknown to them either, being rather the target.
Consider Obama's comments the other day:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

Do you begin to understand both the level of micro management these people are pushing, and the goal of that micromanagement?

Do you begin to understand the damage they will do?